KUNAL DEO RANJAN Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank").

(2.) PETITIONER was an applicant for the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) pursuant to the advertisement published by the Bank in the newspaper on 15.06.2008 as also on line at the website of the Bank. He participated in the written and the interview conducted for such appointment but failed to secure 22.5 per cent marks in the interview as he secured only 18 marks out of 50 marks for the interview and for failure to secure 22.5% marks in the interview he has not been selected although his aggregate is 120 although the last successful Scheduled Caste candidate has secured 115 marks in aggregate. Afroresaid information has been given to petitioner by the Bank under letter dated 8.8.2009, Annexure -8 which is impugned in this application. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the pleadings made in the writ petition submitted that there was no restriction for the candidate to secure minimum of 22.5% marks in the interview. Appreciating such submission this Court under order dated 26.10.2009 called upon the authorities of the Bank to produce by filing counter affidavit the instruction of the Bank which enjoined upon the Scheduled Caste candidate to secure 22.5% marks in the interview. By filing counter affidavit the Bank has placed on record the advertisement published on line for appointment on the post of Assistant Manager (marketing) and other posts, with reference to Sub -Clause (iii) of Clause (10) of the advertisement on line learned counsel for the Bank submits that the minimum qualifying marks for the Scheduled Caste candidate in personal interview is 22.5 or 45 per cent of total marks, the petitioner a Scheduled Caste candidate having secured only 18 marks in interview is not qualified for selection. In appreciation of the contents of Sub -Clause (iii) of Clause (10) of the advertisement on line, I am satisfied that petitioner has rightly been not selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) as he failed to secure 22.5 or 45 per cent marks in interview. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that he is not aware as to how much marks the last candidate who has been selected in the Scheduled Caste category has secured in interview out of his 115 aggregate marks. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Bank, this writ application is dismissed, however, with direction to the Central Public Information Officer, under whose signature the impugned letter dated 8.8.2009, Annexure -8 has been issued, to inform the petitioner about the marks secured by the last successful Scheduled Caste candidate in the personal interview within one month from today through registered post.